My comment was simply pointing out that if you are famous then your misdeeds are more likely to become the focus of media attention, while someone unknown committing the same offences is unlikely to get reported by the media. That is all I was saying- I made no attempt to say that it is a factor for mitigation of sentence. The effect of the approbation in the media is a penalty in and of itself, that is true, but your attempt at sarcasm are actually sentencing policy! Mate, your rantings are just OTT. Calm down and go cold turkey, ok?

Do you recall the problem with Jim Peron? He had strong links with ACT. Rodney and ACT defended Peron when allegations that he had strong links with NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) were made. However, when it became clear that the allegations had merit Rodney distanced himself from Peron. There are still some ACT members not happy with me for my condemnation of the sick puppy, Peron who has been kicked out of New Zealand.

The vast majority of the public abhor child pornography of any sort.

Can you not see that any ACT member who in any way supports child porn reflects badly on ACT?

Not completely, but not so I would say there is one law for the rich and another for the poor when it comes to sentencing

Well using applying your logic that the ‘impact’ of punishment on the individual on his family should be taken into account, when it comes to name suppression for rich and prominent people, why not then the impact of a prison term on a poor person compared to a rich person?

Using your own twisted logic there definitely is one law for the rich and another for the poor – poor people should be given shorter sentences than rich people for the same crime (so they can get out earlier to support their families) for there to be true equity in sentencing. This is currently not the case.

Obviously FE Smith you are all for bending over backwards for the rich and prominent when it comes to public notoriety and shaming, but not for poor people when it comes to sentencing. Can’t you see the idiocy behind your thinking? Probably not, as it is seems that it is beyond your limitations to perceive.

I won’t even dignify the rest of it with an answer.

Tinman: yes, you do miss the point. That is because you don’t seem to understand the difference between what is and what should be. Go study your chart again to work out the difference between dreams and reality. I fail to see how my noting what actually happens and trying to allow for some protection from it is reprehensible. Perhaps because, as I said, you just don’t get it?

F E Smith (505) Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:17 am

Tinman, you just haven’t got the point, have you? Publishing the names of child victims of sexual offending can expose them to embarrassment both at the time and at later times. It is completely wrong that any child victim of sexual offending, which involves the infliction of highly personal and often psychologically damaging acts upon them, should have to suffer even the possibility that others should know they have been abused.

It is nothing to do with shame, it is everything to do with the protection of what is left of their childhood from the taunts or questions of their peers, or the condescension of adults. If it was so simple as you make out then I would have no issue with it, but it isn’t, so I do.

No FE Smith, I don’t miss the point.

If a child is mugged in the street and, as I’m told sometimes happens, his/her shoes and telephone are stolen name suppression is not even considered.

The child’s embarrassment matters not, they are simply noted as innocent parties.

My point, which you miss completely, is that is only the attitudes of people like yourself that treats innocent victims of sexual-type crimes differently and if they were simply seen as just that, innocent victims, there would be no fuel for “the taunts of their peers, or the condescension of adults”.

I agree this requires a change of attitude, particularly from the idiots who think anything to do with natural processes of the human body are shameful and must be kept out of sight (another argument for another day), and suggest that this change of attitude can only be led by the more educated such as yourself.

That you champion the reverse is not just reprehensible (in my opinion) but condemns more and more innocent young victims to, what for them must be, living hell.

A hell that does not need to be and should not be.

I sat through an rape case (incest) and felt the same at the end as the judge seemed to look for am way to give leeway, the man got 3 yrs for multiple rapes thuogh the soft word incest was used.

Some in the field (American Psychological Association) do not consider that childhood sex with adults is harmful and are pushing for it to be repealed.
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds.

The statement he made that because the child victims were not New Zealanders it was not so important to name this creep was unbelievable.

I agree with the majority above that name suppression should be until conviction then none and as for home detention for a sicko like this, well what planet does Judge Fraser actually come from.

No wonder the NZ legal system and its practitioners are generally held in contempt.

These things you see are in the eye of the beholder and unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, of harm to another person, you are imposing your own prejudices on others.

Viking, I would have thought that harm to the children due to the demand of people prepared to download them would be self evident. That is why there is a law with very harsh penalties in theory.

People who download child porn are an accessory to the crime. I find it hard to understand that you cannot see something that is so obvious to most other people aside from some judge who is incompetent at best and corrupt at worse.

I wonder if that could get me a charge of contempt.

Even more reason to know who the paly person is whether they are a professional or not.
This is kids and the offender had a massive library possibly for sale in NZ.
Moreover this type of offender can go on to offend against kids, just as peepers go on to rape and animal mutilators go on to serious assault.

I think this judge has committed a judgment call that calls into question his competency to sit on the bench and at the very elast i would want him checked out for Freemasonary or child porn links too.

There are several different cases:

1. Name suppression to ensure a fair trial. I don’t really have a problem with this in principle but it’s quite a narrow target. Releasing the name may lead to witnesses coming forward. Also the jurors may hear all sorts of stuff which they still associate with the accused once the trial starts.

2. Name suppression if guilty. The only possible reason is to prevent identification of the victim in a sexual case and even then the victim should be able to waive it, and where possible it is better to identify the accused but suppress the relationship between the accused and the victim.

3. Name suppression if charges dropped or found not guilty. This is 100% wrong. The standard of proof needed for conviction is high and people are entitled to information they need in order to protect themselves even if that high standard is not met. Whether someone has been wrongly accused or just got off due to reasonable doubt is something that the public are entitled to decide for themselves.

Surely some witnesses come forward after seeing the person or the persons name in the paper?